Effects of English Proficiency and Gender on Collaborative Strategic Reading
碩士 === 國立屏東商業技術學院 === 應用外語系 === 97 === Collaborative Strategic Reading (CSR) incorporates four reading strategies underlying the framework of cooperative learning and reciprocal teaching. To date, little research on CSR has been documented, particularly, in the EFL context; the effect of this instr...
| Main Authors: | , |
|---|---|
| Other Authors: | |
| Format: | Others |
| Language: | en_US |
| Published: |
2008
|
| Online Access: | http://ndltd.ncl.edu.tw/handle/25951308050883935952 |
| Summary: | 碩士 === 國立屏東商業技術學院 === 應用外語系 === 97 === Collaborative Strategic Reading (CSR) incorporates four reading strategies underlying the framework of cooperative learning and reciprocal teaching. To date, little research on CSR has been documented, particularly, in the EFL context; the effect of this instructional strategy in EFL reading is still undetermined. The study aimed to probe the effect of CSR on student reading comprehension of expository texts in contrast to the conventional Grammar Translation Method (GTM). English proficiency and gender effects on the two approaches were further examined. The study incorporated a static-group comparison design with additional post-experimental interviews to validate the results. Two intact classes of 78 eighth graders were randomly assigned to the CSR instruction and the GTM instruction. The two groups received the instruction for six periods of class over a course of two weeks. A reading comprehension test followed by individual interviews was administered after the instruction. Important results were produced: (a) the CSR group significantly outperformed the GTM group; (b) CSR low-achievers performed significantly better than GTM low-achievers; low-achieving students benefited more from CSR instruction; (c) no CSR instructional superiority was found in high- or mid-achieving students; (d) male learners with CSR instruction significantly outperformed their male counterparts with conventional GTM instruction; males benefited more from CSR instruction; (e) no CSR instructional superiority was found in female learners; (f) all of the low-achievers (100%) being interviewed reported preference over CSR in comparison with lower motivation in the high-achievers (75%) and mid-achievers (50%); particularly, 100% of the males reported positive attitudes toward this instruction in contrast to the relatively lower percentage in females (50%) on the CSR preference. Pedagogical implications and suggestions for further research were provided to conclude the study.
|
|---|